The recreational use of marijuana has been glamorized over the years by such on-screen duos as Cheech & Chong and Harold & Kumar, but is the drug everything that Hollywood makes it out to be? Then again, are we being hypocritical by allowing alcohol consumption but not cannabis usage? With passionate believers on both sides of the argument, it will be interesting to see what happens when the smoke clears.
Please select the category that most closely reflects your concern about this content,
so that we can review it and determine whether it violates Civility 101 or isn't
appropriate for some other reason.
Abusing this feature is also a violation of Civility 101.
Explanation:
Dr. Sabet, in today's age, do you think it's worth considering all possible fuel alternatives? Hemp has some indisputable positive practical applications. While it's really not the issue we are discussing in this debate, downplaying it's industrial use as nothing more than smoke and mirrors may be a bit naive...
- Asemili
August 8, 2008 7:51AM
Reply to this
Recommend
(4)
Side: Yes
Doctor, please answer the following: Where did you get the stat, "only 800-2300 marijuana users are imprisoned? The 700,000 arrestees doesn't represent those arrested by LE, but rather those arrests that LE reported? What's the difference? Prohibition was really decriminalization. Are you serious? I think you meant it was CRIMINALIZATION!
There is overwhelming evidence to support continued criminalization of marijuana. Where? Ending prohibition in no way guarantees the elimination of the black market. Well, prohibition DEFINITELY GUARANTEES a continuation of the black market. What say you? Hemp distracts the REAL issues. So does hyperbole, lies, and propaganda. What say you?
Another unfortunate example of a degreed individual with an inability to think or reason. SHOW US SOME PROOF, or UNBIASED studies. You should be embarassed, doctor, really.
- PSYOP August 8, 2008 1:39PM
Reply to this
Recommend
(3)
Side: Yes
your right it should be moved to the environmental issues because the industries hemp would re-place are also the biggest causes of pollution deforestation and erosion.
- ignint October 1, 2008 8:54AM
Reply to this
Recommend
(1)
Side: Yes
Wow! The MOST beneficial plant in human history, useful in more ways than one. You don't think that Hearst, DuPont, Mellon, and Carnegie had any interest in keeping industrial hemp out of the picture? Please!
That is ridiculous. Money talks, money buys votes and politicians, money will help induct legislation that will eliminate competitors i.e. DuPont with his nylon and sulfide paper pulping process. All so we can rape the earth of its oil and trees for the love of money. The Decoricator was poised to revolutionize the hemp industry and make it as lucrative as the budding plastics industry. Something which big investors could not let happen and so began the demonization of Cannabis and the introduction of the false term 'marihuana'.
Which makes for sense in a sustainable manner?
1.) Destroying a acre of forest for paper pulp that uses sulfides and takes 10-20 years to regrow.
or
2.) Growing a acre of hemp that produces 4 times the pulp in one season, and is ready for the next years cycle.
There is a very good reason why paper was originally made from hemp. It is stronger, longer lasting, and requires no sulfides.
Plastics can also be made from it that would actually biodegrade. Why make biofuels from a food source like corn when producing it from hemp would also allow other products to be manufactured.
Dr. Sabet I find your arguments shallow, and still touting the exact same lines that have come before. You would think that after a 71 year WAR that we might get the hint that it will never go away, and it would be best to just embrace it, regulate it, and tax it to reap the revenue from it and also open up more industries in the United States of America!!
- tRANIS March 8, 2009 8:45AM
Reply to this
Recommend
(2)
Side: Yes
I'm curious why Sabet attacks the argument of someone completely different, instead of the one he is supposed to--and fails to actually give a reason why hemp shouldn't be legal .
- Blue Linchpin May 2, 2009 12:24AM
Reply to this
Recommend
(0)
Side: Yes
Dr. Sabet wrote;
"Hemp is a distracting issue which really has little to do with modern drug control policy...".
The reasons industrial hemp is not allowed to be grown in the US is precisely BECAUSE of modern drug control policy. Of course, it was a perfectly good crop to grow before cannabis prohibition, and then again during WWll. Industrial hemp would be a very useful crop today -- if it weren't for the ridiculous ongoing prohibition of psychoactive cannabis.
As mentioned in another post -- Dr. Sabet, you really should be embarrassed!
- blendin June 17, 2009 12:30PM
Reply to this
Recommend
(0)
Side: Yes
1
0
0
0
40
27
29
27
5
3
2
3
5
4
1
Biweekly updates on new debates and experts
Please check your email to confirm your subscription.
© 2008 Opposing Views, Inc. All Rights Reserved.
Opposing Views, Inc. is not responsible for the content posted on this website. Please view full disclaimer under Terms
Industrial Use
- From NORML
By National Organization for the Reform of Marijuana Laws - Working to Reform Marijuana Laws
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
Another no brainer
MJ has many industrial uses paper for one quit cutting down all the trees for paper they make oxygen that is what we need to breath!! Use MJ it will grow 15 feet tall in one season and make some good paper many old documents were written on hemp paper! Just one small use look it up there are many biofuel is another better than corn we can eat corn!! Stop our leaders, they are enslaving many good Americans young and old for greed do some reading don't be the sheep they want you to be!!
- Cherokee Fred hussein August 19, 2008 7:38AM
Reply to this Recommend (0)
Side: Yes
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.